Allahabad Court August 1924 Judgments
Raghunandan Prasad and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All290; 136Ind.Cas.621; 79Ind.Cas.916; 85Ind.Cas.730
Mukerji, J.1. In this revision a question of jurisdiction has been raised, and it is unfortunate that at this late stage I have no alternative but to allow the contention.2. A woman, Mt. Sheorania, an agriculturist, brought a charge against the applicants on the allegation that they with a large number of cattle got her field damaged and that crops to the value of Rs. 250 were destroyed. The offence alleged was one of mischief; but the law makes a distinction between mischief of a minor kind and a mischief of a graver sort. Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code makes an ordinary case of mischief punishable with imprisonment to the extent of three months and with fine; but where the amount of damage or loss caused is Rs. 50 or upwards, the maximum punishment awardable is under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code two years imprisonment and fine. A case of the graver kind of mischief is not triable by a Magistrate of the third class. In this particular case a learned Magistrate of the thi...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All409
Mukerji, J.1. The original charge under which the applicants were tried was one under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were convicted of that offence and were sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for 9 months; and were besides ordered to pay a fine. There was an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge and he disbelieved that any offence had been committed such as is defined in Section 353. But be held that there was an obstruction in the discharge of the duty of the Kanungo within the meaning of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and he convicted the applicants of an offence under Section 186 and reduced the sentence of imprisonment for two weeks. In this Court it has been contended that there was really no case under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants were entitled to an acquittal.2. The facts of the case, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, were these : The Kanungo, Amiruddin, went to a village of which the applicant, Kishori Lal, was the...
Tag this Judgment!Keshori Lal and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.821
Mukerji, J.1. The original charge under which the applicants were tried was one under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants were convicted of that offence and were sentenced each to rigorous imprisonment for nine months; and were besides ordered to pay a fine. There was rah appeal to the learned Sessions Judge and he: disbelieved that any offence had been committed such as is defined in Section 353. But Be held that there was an obstruction in the discharge of the duty of the Kanungo within the meaning of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and he convicted the applicants of an offence under Section 186 and reduced the sentence of imprisonment for two weeks.2. In this Court it has been Contended that there was really no case under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellants were entitled to an acquittal.3. The facts of the case, as found by the learned Sessions Judge, were these: The Kanungo, Amir-ud-Din, went to a village of which the applicant, Kishori Lal...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotey Lal Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All220; 85Ind.Cas.722
Mukherji, J.1. The applicant was charged with having committed an offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. He appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, but his appeal was dismissed.2. In this Court, it has been contended that on the facts found and in the circumstances of the case the prosecution has failed to prove a case under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.3. The following facts appear to have bean established. 2-1/2 years before the discovery of the articles at the applicant's house, these had been removed from the houses of the two complainants by means of a dacoity. The articles are four silver ornaments of total value of Rs. 100. The applicant is a goldsmith by caste and profession. He was asked whence he got those articles and he replied that he himself had made them for his wife. The articles were found, except in one case, on the person of the wife of the applicant. There is no evidence that any at...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Ram Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All410; 85Ind.Cas.710
Mukerji, J.1. Two points have been, urged in this application for revision.2. It appears that the applicant prosecuted' somebody on a charge under Section 498 of the Indian Panel Code. The prosecution failed. It was before a Bench of Honorary Magistrates. The learned District Magistrate to whom an appeal would, ordinarily lie from the orders of the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates, took up the matter under Section 476-A, of the Criminal Procedure Code and ordered the prosecution of the applicant under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant went to the learned Sessions Judge in appeal and his appeal, has been dismissed.3. It is urged that the learned District-Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take up the matter as the original complaint was not heard by him. The point, however, cannot be maintained in view of the new, law, viz., 476-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.4. The second point is that as a matter of fact no oath was administered to the applicant. Assuming ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Das Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All218a; 84Ind.Cas.719
Mukherji, J.1. These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases No. 156 and No. 157 of 1924, have arisen out of a single reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut.2. It appears that one Bhagwan Das was triad at the instance of one Siddiq Ali and was convicted under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code by a summary trial, and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200. A revision against this conviction and sentence was filed before the Court of the learned Sessions Judge and was transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge hearing cases from Muzaffarnagar District. There was another criminal case against the same person, Bhagwan Das, and as the result of that case he was convicted of an offence under Section 298 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 300. Against this conviction and sentence Bhagwan Das appealed to the Sessions Judge of Meerut and the appeal in the ordinary course was transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Kalka Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All291
Mukerji, J.1. This is one of the cases in which, in my opinion, the Criminal Court ought not to have assumed jurisdiction. The applicant was charged with an offence under Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he cut certain trees which belonged to the zemindar and to cut which the applicant had no right. The applicant met the case with the plea that the trees stood on his own land and that he had a right to cut them. I have carefully read-the judgment of the learned Magistrate. The whole judgment is based on the question whether the tree has been proved to be the property of the zemindar or that of the tenant. It is clear from this judgment that what the applicant did he did openly and deliberately. He not only claimed the trees as his own, but he sold them to a third party who has evidently acted in good faith and has not been prosecuted. A good deal of evidence was adduced on either side and the patwari who was examined for the land-holder supported the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Muhamad Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All175
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Muhammad Hasan who has bean convicted by a learned Magistrate under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act, 1878. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 by the Magistrate. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 75.2. In revision it is contended first that the facts found do not make out a case under the section under which the applicant has been convicted and secondly that, the sentence is still too severe.3. The facts found are these : The applicant's father holds a license for a gun. The license which has bean issued to him does not mention that he is entitled to hand over his gun to any retainer. The applicant took out the gun of his father for the purpose of shooting birds, and it appears that he shot at least one. While thus possessing the gun near a pond, he was found out by an officer of the police and the Tahsildar. It has been urged for the applicant that his possession ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkhan Singh Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1925All226; 84Ind.Cas.711
Mukerji, J.1. I think in this case the conviction must be sat aside. The applicant Malkhan Singh was convicted by a learned Magistrate of the offence under Section 171(f) of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge changed the conviction into one under Section 171(f) read with Section 511 of the same Code.2. In this Court the contention is that the facts found did not amount to an attempt to commit the principal offence.3. I think this contention is right. I proceed on the facts as have been found in the judgments of the Courts below. It appears that the procedure for voting is something like this : The voter goes to an officer, who issues what are known as 'signature slips.' He has to state, or in some other way indicate to that officer, who be is. On ascertaining that the applicant is a real voter the officer, in whose charge the signature slips are, issues one to the applicant. The applicant then signs the signature slip, and on the strength of that signature slip...
Tag this Judgment!Muhammad Hasan Vs. Emperor
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Aug-18-1924
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.159
Mukerji, J.1. This is an application in revision by one Muhammad Hasan who has been convicted by a learned Magistrate under Section 19(f) of the Arms Act 1878. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200 by the Magistrate. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 75.2. In appeal it is contended first that the facts found do not make out a case under the section under which the applicant has been convicted and second y that the sentence is still too severe.3. The facts found are these: The applicant's father (sic) license for a gun. The license which has been issued to him does not Mention that he is entitled to hand over his gun to any retainer. The applicant took out the gun of his father for the purpose of shooting birds and it appears that he shot at least one. While thus possessing the gun near a pond, he was found out by an officer of the Police and the Tahsildar. It has been urged for the applicant that his possession was a te...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »